Ahhh, I thought that was something official.
This is just speculation from Dimmi from mil.net.
Not that he is wrong of course, but most of that is just public knowledge.
Armata is a family of vehicles and is the creation of the Russian military who obviously were creating new force structures and had been told they need to replace everything... eventually. By 2020 they will have 70% brand new stuff.
Assuming they continue the process they will have to replace everything.
So changing from Armies and divisions and brigades, they have dropped divisions and created 4 districts with brigade structures.
When they were developing this new structure they needed to talk about the weaponry and vehicles each brigade would be equipped with and once its purpose and use had been established its design could be developed.
Armata is the family for the heavy vehicles in the heavy brigades so amphibious capability will not be an issue... but bridging vehicles will.
After working out what each brigade type will be expected to do and where etc they went to the makers of armoured vehicles to see what they were working on.
What they were working on was what they were asked to be working on, so there was the T-95... a big expensive cold war super tank, and the BMPT fire support tank, and the Coalition... based on the T-95, and of course the Sprut which is a BMD-3 chassis with a 125mm gun on top.
The problem was that the T-95 is too big and unwieldy, and they don't want a new calibre, and it is too expensive.
The BMPT is a fire support vehicle that doesn't even have the fire power of the BMP-4.
Coalition is based on the T-95.
And Sprut is a nice try but the BMD-3 chassis is too lightly armoured for a medium brigade and the majority of the light brigade will be wheeled so it would be better if it was an 8 or 10 wheeled chassis.
So all those programs as they are have been cancelled and gap fillers have been applied... the BTR-82 covers the basic issues with the BTR-80 without costing too much. The T-90AM will cover the vast majority of the issues with the T-90, though the extra cost has resulted in some moaning.
The new programs will be not hugely different from what they replace... Coalition will likely eventually see service on an Armata chassis. AFAIK its development was a joint program with the Navy for much longer range artillery fire with guided projectiles.
The Sprut turret will likely be fitted to the vehicle that I originally called Gilza and now is apparently called Boomerang, which will be a better armoured 25 ton amphibious wheeled vehicle that makes the family for the light brigade with lots of Volk and Tiger-M like support vehicles too.
A more thickly armoured Sprut turret might even be used on the medium BMP level armoured vehicle as the fire support vehicle for the medium brigades.
The Armata tank that replaces the T-90AM will likely have lots of features that the T-95 has... though I suspect the 65 ton model will be the artillery version of Coalition with its enormous turret making it rather heavy... if very capable.
What I am trying to say is that Armata isn't a UVZ development... it is a theoretical vehicle developed by the Russian military and I am guessing that to save time any feature the Russian military demands of the Armata that was developed for the T-95 UVZ will not develop from scratch... they will simply use that technology in the new vehicle family.
If you follow the link to Dimmi's page he lists the modifications as BREM, APC, and MBT... to which I would add Coalition type artillery vehicle, and air defence vehicle too... probably Pantsir or TOR. Within the brigade the commonality of chassis will be an advantage for the logistics tail.
I should add that the APC version of the Armata will likely be lightly armed... if you look at the weapon options for the BTRT you can see that filling a vehicle with troops and then putting 100mm guns and 40 rounds of 100mm HE rounds plus missiles and 30mm cannons means not only is there less space for dis-mountable troops, it also means those troops are at risk of fire or explosion if the vehicle is penetrated.
The solution is to separate the troop carrier from the IFV by creating a BMPT type vehicle.
Yes I know the BMPT was rejected, but its armament was wrong... two 30mm cannon and ATAKA missiles just isn't good enough.
The Armata fire support vehicle should have an externally mounted 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3M with a turret bustle autoloader to separate the ammo from the crew compartment and the external mount should allow a 20 degree gun depression and at least 75 degree elevation so 100mm HE rounds can be directed at targets that Tanks have problems hitting because of elevation limits of their main guns.(which was the whole point of the BMPT).
Also a 30mm cannon should be mounted with the 100mm gun as on the BMP-3M and preferably external mount gun turrets with wide fields of fire should be fitted at the front of the chassis... the Balkan is small enough to enable an external mount and is powerful enough to be effective. PKTs are another option but both would be best in each turret.
Note the 100mm rifled main gun has only one type of standard ammo so the bustle autoloader can be simple like a belt feed of a machine gun. A seperate feed from the other side could hold the 4-6 guided missiles perhaps in a rotary drum feed for the external cannon.
Of the pictures of the T-90AM, it looks as it has ammo storage in the
turret. Like the blow out ammo storage of western tanks. If that is the
case, it has a completely new autoloader and turret-chassi layout. Hence
the previous T-90`s couldnt possible be upgraded, not less than a
completly rebuilding, and that isnt likely.
I should add that when Omsk tank production fell apart the design team moved to UVZ and took with them the Black Eagle design.
I would suggest that the turret bustle auto loader probably came from this design team, which was separated from the crew compartment, though in the Black Eagle design the under floor auto loader was removed.
The auto loader in the T-72/-90 series has the two piece ammo in the under floor autoloader lying horizontally with armour on top to separate it from the crew.
In the autoloader in the T-80 series the rounds are stored horizontally with their rear fins outwards but the propellent charges are stored around the outer edge vertically with their stubs upwards.
The problem is that the stub propellent cartridges are very very huge fire risks and of course with 22 of these around the base of the turret any penetration leading to hot fragments falling to the floor... well it was quickly worked out in combat that this was a problem... the Black Eagle design dealt with that problem by completely removing the underfloor autoloader and moving it to a new armoured turret bustle position.
Still using two piece ammo there was no 90 degree turns to load and ammo could simply be rammed straight into the gun which is both faster and simpler and of course allows for much longer penetrators to be used.
With the T-90AM with all the ammo in auto loaders it makes things much easier for the crew, and with all the ammo in armoured or external auto loaders it is much safer for the crew as well.
It took 15-20 minutes to load the 22 rounds into the under turret autoloader and rounds had to be handed up and loaded through the turret roof hatches.
Great care had to be taken with the propellent stubs.
The type of round loaded into each autoloader cell had to be stored in the fire control system so when a target appeared that required a specific type of ammo the autoloader could find the nearest round stored in the autoloader.
In the Black Eagle design the turret bustle autoloader only held 31 rounds which is more than the 22 of the original autoloader but less than the standard load of about 40-45 rounds.
The turret bustle autoloader on the BE design was designed to be removed in one piece like a magazine for a rifle and replaced with a full magazine. This would mean that the tanks would withdraw from the battlefield and be reloaded quickly and sent back into battle... sounds a little awkward, but safer and quicker than manually loading through the roof hatches.
I wonder how they will load the rear autoloader.
I remember one of the design changes was to increase the size of the turret hatches.
Rather than upgrade previous T-90s it might be easier to simply make new turrets for them... the old T-90 turrets could initially be fitted to the T-72s till new turrets are ready for them.